Support NeoGAF

[faceless007]

I remember this whole thing very clearly. Its easy to say that in hindsight, but the comic was ABSOLUTELY held as a source of 'massive outrage' back then. That they didnt back down on it when pressured eventually became the 'new' reason behind it all, but initially people were absolutely pretending that the comic was the worst thing ever.

I found it petty then and still do. Many comics, comedians, and frequently circulated jokes have done much worse on this and many other sensitive subjects.

This does not match up with this rather exhaustive timeline of the debacle. My tl;dr edited and truncated version with comments:

August 11, 2010 - “The Sixth Slave" comic

August 12, 2010 - A guest blogger on Shakesville objects.

August 13, 2010

Penny Arcade’s response to the concerns of rape survivors and their allies with the comic “Breaking It Down.” Jerry and Mike further explain their response on the Penny Arcade blog.

[Some more bloggers pick it up, reacting more to the insulting reply than the original comic. Everyone's over it by August 19.]

October 6, 2010 (two months later)

On the Penny Arcade blog, Mike mocks trigger warnings, and Jerry announces that they’ll be selling a dickwolf t-shirt in the Penny Arcade store. [Some more blogs comment. Not many.]

January 24, 2011 (three months later) - Courtney Stanton announces she was asked to, but will not be speaking at Penny Arcade Expo East (PAX East), citing Penny Arcade’s lack of apology/correction over the dickwolf controversy.

January 26, 2011

Dickwolf merchandise removed from Penny Arcade store
Courtney Stanton thanks Penny Arcade for removing the merch.

[Three blogs comment, some positive some negative.]

January 29, 2011

Mike comments on the merchandise removal on the Penny Arcade forums after a fan notes their absence.
On the Penny Arcade blog, Mike explains why the merchandise was removed.

[This is when things blow up into the disaster of cataclysmic proportions, as the timeline shows in excruciating detail.]

So unless there's a trove of angry blogs about the comic between August 11, 2010 and October 6, 2010 (the date they passive-aggressively acted on their two-month grudges by making a T-shirt signifying the joke) that are not included in this timeline, then no, the proper outrage did not start until five months after the comic, and was mainly a reaction to Courtney Stanton's blog post on why she's not speaking at PAX as well as the PA fanbase finding out that the shirts were removed. And almost all of the blogs before then weren't as critical of the initial "Sixth Slave" comic as they were at the childish and patronizing follow-up comic devoted entirely to a straw man.

As a sidenote, disingenuously characterizing your opponent's arguments as calling something the "worst thing ever" is like the worst thing ever.

 

[wonderdung]

faceless007 stays delivering ether by the gallon - glad i came back to this mess of a thread for that post, so many people (on nearly every page) saying is about internet rage machine/censorship etc need to read that, it was barely about the initial strip to begin with, and it's damn sure well past that now

While it's not my place to tell angry people what they're upset about, this whole bit about how they intentionally made a t-shirt as a big "fuck you" to rape victims is assuming a hell of a lot about PA's motives. Maybe some people feel like it's a big "fuck you" to them, and that's unfortunate, but it doesn't mean that is what they intended.

I was going back in the time line thing and reading a bit earlier, even after they took the shirt down people were making blog posts about what terrible people they are. That might annoy me too. Do the right thing and still get shit on? Might as well have left it up and at least have your "artistic integrity" in tact. (If that's even possible when you're selling merchandise.)

 

[IrishNinja]

Do you think this passes for a compelling counter argument?

I don't think it particularly warrants one, so...yes, it'll do?
he was replying to someone who continued framing the discussion as if it was about comedic material & censorship, and spoke to the bit one-upping that about visiting the intentions of those who took umbrage with said original comic (also more adequately addressed in my quoted post, which i'm not sure you saw). his reply was actually worse than simply being reductive, as it demeans the entire discussion by warping it to some odd "gotcha" game.

the mental gymnastics required to create such a narrative do not call for a more compelling reply, but here goes one anyway.

I am offended by your satire because english is not my first language. You better apologize for your lack of tact on the matter

Spoiler

lol

...okay, this one got me, haha

 

[polyh3dron]

While it's not my place to tell angry people what they're upset about, this whole bit about how they intentionally made a t-shirt as a big "fuck you" to rape victims is assuming a hell of a lot about PA's motives. Maybe some people feel like it's a big "fuck you" to them, and that's unfortunate, but it doesn't mean that is what they intended.

I was going back in the time line thing and reading a bit earlier, even after they took the shirt down people were making blog posts about what terrible people they are. That might annoy me too. Do the right thing and still get shit on? Might as well have left it up and at least have your "artistic integrity" in tact. (If that's even possible when you're selling merchandise.)

You could say it's disingenuously mischaracterizing an opponent's argument even.

 

[IrishNinja]

While it's not my place to tell angry people what they're upset about, this whole bit about how they intentionally made a t-shirt as a big "fuck you" to rape victims is assuming a hell of a lot about PA's motives. Maybe some people feel like it's a big "fuck you" to them, and that's unfortunate, but it doesn't mean that is what they intended.

i don't think it's out of left field, though...mike really planted his flag on that one. not only did they respond with that asinine "reply" strip, he went to social media & actively trolled said community - i may be remembering this wrong but i could swear he commented on a feminist blog as well (i.e., beyond simply engaging, he sought this out). if none of these things would've happened i'd be more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, but he brought this up before drawing dickwolves at PAX (i wanna say?) and again, throwing it out there like this now i think rather clearly illustrates his intentions.

within this context, i'm honestly having a hard time not seeing it that way.

You could say it's disingenuously mischaracterizing an opponent's argument even.

you could certainly say that! you've every right to. but if someone disagrees or worse takes offense, i don't think you could call their disagreeing with you a call for censorship, you know? hypothetically speaking.

 

[blitzcloud]

...okay, this one got me, haha

I agree that it was poorly constructed. I just wanted to say, from my deprivement of sleep, that once they ignited the initial outrage passing it as a joke on rape and starting to go over the top, Mike gave them the flagship to continue the pitchforking with a very problematic response to a serious matter (for the side that felt offended at least). So from that point, they held their outrage to the response rather than the comic itself, since it was a better foothold to continue the crusade.

Btw, it seems like that blogpost

http://elizabethsampat.com/quit-fucking-going-to-pax-already-what-is-wrong-with-you/

put my comment as awaiting for moderation (which did not display before). Dat removal of comments for whatever reason.

First words in the article “Mike and Jerry posted a rape joke” are already factually wrong. And it’s up to you now to detract my statement unless you want me to call you a misandrist (because gender seems to be the foremost important thing in this kind of debate) for outright lying about what the strip was really about. I can give you a reason why the joke is not a rape joke. Changing the word ‘rape’ and ‘dickwolves’ can still retain the punchline of the comic. However, people seemed to like the mythical unimaginable dickwolf creature.

Now please, as an exercise of obligated censorship remove the inadequate reference by simply saying “Mike and Jerry posted a strip”, if you can’t acknowledge the real purpose of the comic or the “joke” behind it.

PS: I don’t like PA. I don’t feel PA responds well to criticism. I dislike the recent kickstarter they did, which is a complete hypocrite move after their strip bashing those who use it for raising their own wealth.

 

[BobbyRobby]

He's picking on rape survivors. That's as low as it gets.

Specifically. He set out to insult people who have been raped. Not even a rape joke at that point, he specifically wanted to profit off of AND insult and hurt people who have been raped.

it seems more like he was poking fun at the hyper-sensitive reactions like what you've said here.

you've gone pretty low yourself here. do you seriously believe that's what the intent of the shirt was? or are you contorting reality to push your agenda?

 

[wonderdung]

i don't think it's out of left field, though...mike really planted his flag on that one. not only did they respond with that asinine "reply" strip, he went to social media & actively trolled said community - i may be remembering this wrong but i could swear he commented on a feminist blog as well (i.e., beyond simply engaging, he sought this out). if none of these things would've happened i'd be more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, but he brought this up before drawing dickwolves at PAX (i wanna say?) and again, throwing it out there like this now i think rather clearly illustrates his intentions.

within this context, i'm honestly having a hard time not seeing it that way.

Could just be that their was demand for the merchandise in their community. The merch didn't have anything to do with rape, just the funny-because-it's-absurd character they created. The explanation about the takedown to me sounds like they didn't understand the problem in the first place or didn't take it seriously or perhaps thought the problem was rape and not dickwolves, but when people privately and politely emailed him to explain he began to understand and made the decision to take it down.

If he's regretting it now my assumption is that he forgot whatever he learned from those emails. It's easy to lose sight of the fact that you did the right thing when some of the more grating/trollish people on the other side of the debate are harassing you.

I didn't pay any attention to it at the time, so if you think that's all implausible then I can't really say anything about it.

 

[IrishNinja]

fair enough blitzcloud, and yeah, while i sympathize with the notion of rape culture i didn't think that strip inititatilly was a great example of it, either - but i'd be lying if i said i didn't feel like i saw some very real examples of such in the response, and that's not even just limited to Mike.

Could just be that their was demand for the merchandise in their community. The merch didn't have anything to do with rape, just the funny-because-it's-absurd character they created. The explanation about the takedown to me sounds like they didn't understand the problem in the first place or didn't take it seriously or perhaps thought the problem was rape and not dickwolves, but when people privately and politely emailed him to explain he began to understand and made the decision to take it down.

If he's regretting it now my assumption is that he forgot whatever he learned from those emails. It's easy to lose sight of the fact that you did the right thing when some of the more grating/trollish people on the other side of the debate are harassing you.

I didn't pay any attention to it at the time, so if you think that's all implausible then I can't really say anything about it.

eh, no, i mean they've had fruit fuckers and weirder characters up for years so i can certainly see what you're saying here. but even based on gabe's own response on PA about how twitter sucks & showing those letters, i really feel like the bolded is the bit that's the meat of it here for me, and i absolutely don't understand why he'd double-down after the continuity of these events...again, as was said prior, especially with the more inclusive nature PAX seems to go for.

I honestly can't think of why he'd want to go back on that now, unless it's some misguided free speech thing that's been bothering him for a while now. it really does make a lot've this feel hollow for me, though...like, your words seemed to be more empathetic at the end, rather than a business decision...and that's what you're regretting? in the words of that manager, you don't want to "engage" these things? if that was really true, none of this woudl've gone down...they'dve kept making strips like they always do. at the very least, there would've been no logical reason to unearth this mess.

 

[Rafterman]

If you think Mike Krahulik is anything but a despicable waste of air you're either one naive fucker or you're also a terrible person. This shithead literally brought up a years old rape joke for seemingly no other reason than to remind everyone hes still a completely ignorant sack of shit.

Even people like "feminists" and "rape survivors" are generally able to give someone a chance if they make an honest effort to listen and educate themselves but Krahlik seems to have zero interest in anything other than being a raging asshole.

Also, a rich dude throwing money at a charity to get people to shut up is probably the most insincere form of apology one can possibly make.

What size Dickwolf shirt would you like?

I'd say it's pretty naive to think you know anything about the man, honestly. A couple of posts on blogs or statements does not make someone a terrible person, regardless of the content. One of these days you might figure out that your views are not universal, and that everyone who doesn't share them isn't terrible.

And make up your fucking minds, either the strip was the issue or it wasn't. If it wasn't then bringing it back up shouldn't matter. If it was, then you guys have been talking out of both sides of your mouth this whole thread.

 

[IrishNinja]

And make up your fucking minds, either the strip was the issue or it wasn't. If it wasn't then bringing it back up shouldn't matter. If it was, then you guys have been talking out of both sides of your mouth this whole thread.

interesting dichotomy - i don't know who "you guys" are, but there's quite a bit've context following said strip; it's entirely possible bringing that up and specifically commenting on the controversy & subsequent removal of said product, followed by management talking about engaging such things has a bit more to it than those three panels.

 

[blitzcloud]

What size Dickwolf shirt would you like?

I'd say it's pretty naive to think you know anything about the man, honestly. A couple of posts on blogs or statements does not make someone a terrible person, regardless of the content. One of these days you might figure out that your views are not universal, and that everyone who doesn't share them isn't terrible.

And make up your fucking minds, either the strip was the issue or it wasn't. If it wasn't then bringing it back up shouldn't matter. If it was, then you guys have been talking out of both sides of your mouth this whole thread.

i am more fearful about those that premeditate everything at all times than those who can make fools of themselves easily. A text does not reflect who we are, indeed. For all you know one can be the second coming of Christ in text form and be a horrible person on the inside.

But it's still the only thing we've got.

 

[faceless007]

You could say it's disingenuously mischaracterizing an opponent's argument even.

I'm just curious, do you have anything to contribute to this line of discussion other than passive aggressive one-liners and straw men?

Re: motive, I really don't see a lot of room for misinterpretation. If people come to you and say "This thing makes me really uncomfortable" and you do it anyway and encourage lots of other people to do it too, you are at best displaying apathy of a sociopathic level toward that group, which is hardly any better than setting out to deliberately antagonize them, and you can't claim ignorance or innocence about the effects you knew it would have on them. But if anyone can provide a more plausible motive that doesn't sound like the invention of petulant children I'm all ears. Even if there is one, you still have to contend with the fact that the PA guys weighed it, whatever it is, against the knowledge that it would make many female attendees uncomfortable and threatened and contribute to the same endemic problems of sexual harassment at gaming conventions that they claimed to want to guard against -- and then decided on balance that it was still worth it. So it would have to be a pretty damn compelling motive for "fuck you" not to be a reasonable interpretation of that decision.

 

[tassletine]

The problem is ONLY that people have no sense of humour.

Humour is often used to enable us to laugh at situations that we feel uncomfortable with. That is one of the main staples of comedy. If you don't see rape wolves as comedy then you don't have a sense of humour -- Not for not finding it funny (that's subjective) but for actually complaining and taking the joke seriously.

On top of this, some people seem to think that a hand drawn cartoon of man complaining about a fantasy creature equates to real life situations of women and rape. This is seriously deluded and utterly disrespectful of people who have to endure this crime. Could any of you here seriously have this stupid conversation with someone who has actually been raped? I very much doubt it.

Any professional comedian will tell you that NOTHING should be off limits as far as comedy goes, for the simple reason that once you start censoring things where do you stop? -- Comedy is about freeing ourselves from what makes us stressed in our everyday lives and if people want to start regulating comedy then that defeats the object.

 

[homulilly]

So its not okay to call out a raging misogynist asshole for being a raging misogynist asshole now? People need to stop defending this dickhead.

What size Dickwolf shirt would you like?

I'd say it's pretty naive to think you know anything about the man, honestly. A couple of posts on blogs or statements does not make someone a terrible person, regardless of the content. One of these days you might figure out that your views are not universal, and that everyone who doesn't share them isn't terrible.

People who defend blatant, unrepentant misogynists who have long since run out of excuses for not knowing any better are, in fact, terrible (or extremely ignorant, as I said).

 

[homulilly]

i am more fearful about those that premeditate everything at all times than those who can make fools of themselves easily. A text does not reflect who we are, indeed. For all you know one can be the second coming of Christ in text form and be a horrible person on the inside.

But it's still the only thing we've got.

A terrible person can pretend to be a good person but when a "good person" pretends to be an asshole, they're just an asshole.

 

[blitzcloud]

A terrible person can pretend to be a good person but when a "good person" pretends to be an asshole, they're just an asshole.

you can make about anyone without the proper mental preparation flip out. Hell, you made a very inflammatory comment about Mike when the matter is almost dead cold.

And being an asshole can be more about immaturity than being a bad person in wider terms, I think

 

[Goon Boon]

I just remembered something funny before the dumb shit happened - they literally a joke involving rape two weeks before, and nobody gave a shit.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/07/21

 

[homulilly]

you can make about anyone without the proper mental preparation flip out. Hell, you made a very inflammatory comment about Mike when the matter is almost dead cold.

And being an asshole can be more about immaturity than being a bad person in wider terms, I think

The matter is not "dead cold" Krahulik himself brought it up again yesterday. Not to mention the dickwolves controversy is only the most well know instance of him being a massive douchebag, its hardly the only one.

Immaturity can make you a bad person, especially when you should know better by now. I don't think anyone (including Mike) is doomed to be a bad person forever but he has repeatedly shown he has zero interest in educating himself or engaging with his critics in an honest manner. If he had, I wouldn't be saying what I am.

 

[blitzcloud]

The matter is not "dead cold" Krahulik himself brought it up again yesterday. Not to mention the dickwolves controversy is only the most well know instance of him being a massive douchebag, its hardly the only one.

Immaturity can make you a bad person, especially when you should know better by now. I don't think anyone (including Mike) is doomed to be a bad person forever but he has repeatedly shown he has zero interest in educating himself or engaging with his critics in an honest manner. If he had, I wouldn't be saying what I am.

The matter is dead cold. A comment does not change anything. They didn't put it back on sale. That's what probably matters.

 

[Vagabundo]

The matter is not "dead cold" Krahulik himself brought it up again yesterday. Not to mention the dickwolves controversy is only the most well know instance of him being a massive douchebag, its hardly the only one.

Immaturity can make you a bad person, especially when you should know better by now. I don't think anyone (including Mike) is doomed to be a bad person forever but he has repeatedly shown he has zero interest in educating himself or engaging with his critics in an honest manner. If he had, I wouldn't be saying what I am.

"A bad person", being insensitive, uneducated, a troll does not necessarily make you a bad person. It might be someone you don't like being around.

There is no doubt he keeps fanning the flames on this one. There is no doubt that he has his own views on the subject that clash with lots of feminist and their supporters, but there is plenty of room on the internet for all those views. He's opinionated and doesn't hide it.

People can stop going to PAX or PA's website if they have trouble with this. People should stop trying to "educate" him as it is obvious he does not want to be "educated".

His views on transgendered people are far worse in my opinion.

 

[Kadayi]

People should not ignore this post. This post is excellent.

Actually I think they should, because there's a clear and obvious differential between what a member of the public may choose to wear and what an exhibitor may choose to wear, and the piece fails to acknowledge that. Personally I thought the Jessica Nigri thing was overblown, but at the same time she was there for promotional purposes for the Lollypop chainsaw game on WBs paycheck. Also it's worth noting that she was told to tone her costume down further to complaints from members of the public to the PAX staff. All they were doing was responding to the complaints. If she was there simply as a cos-player of her own accord then there would be an issue of personal suppression.

I doubt in the long and varied history of conventions like PAX and Comic-con etc there haven't been instances of people wearing costumes or clothing that other people haven't found offensive or at least distasteful, but unless they likely cross a certain threshold of widespread public acceptability I suspect few if any have ever been barred.

Walk down any busy high street and you're likely to see someone wearing something that might not agree with you, but are you likely to directly take issue with them? I doubt it.

 

[polyh3dron]

But if anyone can provide a more plausible motive that doesn't sound like the invention of petulant children I'm all ears.

I'm not sure if this will pass your test of not sounding like the invention of petulant children or not because this has already been mentioned in the thread, and maybe you'll just write it off as a straw man because people like to slap that label on arguments they don't like when the label doesn't necessarily apply but maybe, just maybe, Mike was just "outraging at the outrage" so to speak. Doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on his dickwolves gag and making it much more significant than it originally was was a "fuck you" thing for sure, but not necessarily directed at all rape victims and feminists like some people ITT want to argue (which is the disingenuous mischaracterization I was referring to), but more so towards anyone who feels that he should consider everyone's "triggers" so to speak whenever he is doing his comic strip and modify his comic strip to accommodate for any possible "trigger" reaction anyone who potentially reads his comic could possibly have. He wants to be able to make jokes about what he wants, and he's pushing back at people who are, for lack of a better term acting like "Internet bullies". Of course then it escalates and another faction of "Internet bullies" comes to his defense and so on. But at the core of this, it's the classic "I'm using my free speech to tell you to stop using your free speech in an effort to stifle my free speech" scenario.

 

[Smash]

I'm just curious, do you have anything to contribute to this line of discussion other than passive aggressive one-liners and straw men?

Re: motive, I really don't see a lot of room for misinterpretation. If people come to you and say "This thing makes me really uncomfortable" and you do it anyway and encourage lots of other people to do it too, you are at best displaying apathy of a sociopathic level toward that group, which is hardly any better than setting out to deliberately antagonize them, and you can't claim ignorance or innocence about the effects you knew it would have on them. But if anyone can provide a more plausible motive that doesn't sound like the invention of petulant children I'm all ears. Even if there is one, you still have to contend with the fact that the PA guys weighed it, whatever it is, against the knowledge that it would make many female attendees uncomfortable and threatened and contribute to the same endemic problems of sexual harassment at gaming conventions that they claimed to want to guard against -- and then decided on balance that it was still worth it. So it would have to be a pretty damn compelling motive for "fuck you" not to be a reasonable interpretation of that decision.

I think his contribution was pretty helpful actually, he called you out on your intellectually dishonest arguments. First of all, since when did feminists and the pc brigade became representatives of sexual assault victims? Personally, if I were a victim I'd be more pissed off at the self-righteous bullies who are so arrogant that think they can represent me and protect me up there from their pedestal than a couple of comedians making a joke about a horrible situation I've been in.

My mother was a cancer victim and I've had a couple of scares with cancer too and I can't imagine a situation where I'd actually feel the need to censor someone because he told a cancer joke, and I'm an actual "victim" not some holier than thou internet warrior.

 

[blitzcloud]

I think his contribution was pretty helpful actually, he called you out on your intellectually dishonest arguments. First of all, since when did feminists and the pc brigade became representatives of sexual assault victims? Personally, if I were a victim I'd be more pissed at the self-righteous bullies that think they represent me up there from their pedestal than a couple of comedians making a joke about a horrible situation I've been in.

My mother was a cancer victim and I've had a couple of scares with cancer too and I can't imagine a situation where I'd actually feel the need to censor someone because he told a cancer joke, and I'm an actual "victim" now some holier than thou internet warrior.

And allow me to add that it didn't downplay the horror of rape. It was put as an excruciating pain they were going through every day.

 

[IrishNinja]

Doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on his dickwolves gag and making it much more significant than it originally was was a "fuck you" thing for sure, but not necessarily directed at all rape victims and feminists like some people want to argue (which is the disingenuous mischaracterization I was referring to), but more so towards anyone who feels that he should consider everyone's "triggers" so to speak whenever he is doing his comic strip and modify his comic strip to accommodate for any possible "trigger" reaction anyone who potentially reads his comic could possibly have. He wants to be able to make jokes about what he wants, and he's pushing back at people who are, for lack of a better term acting like "Internet bullies". .

he specifically responded to those groups, though - the timeline even highlights where he engaged the original feminist blog raising said complaint. really not seeing how that's disingenuous.

sake of argument, let's say you're right: who do you think he was then targeting, if not feminists & rape victims? you just got done saying he was angry about the notion of triggers, who was making those claims to begin with? I'm uncertain specifically which demographic he could otherwise have been "doubling/tripling" down on here.

I think his contribution was pretty helpful actually, he called you out on your intellectually dishonest arguments. First of all, since when did feminists and the pc brigade became representatives of sexual assault victims? Personally, if I were a victim I'd be more pissed off at the self-righteous bullies who are so arrogant that think they can represent me and protect me up there from their pedestal than a couple of comedians making a joke about a horrible situation I've been in.

first: those arguments were not intellectually dishonest, though you're welcome to specifically address where you disagree. and those feminists and "PC brigade" commented from a blog known for serving as a online sanctuary to said victims who might be sensitive to triggers - i wanna say Gabe even addressed this regarding his history of drug use. are they not allowed to post a blog article on their own site regarding the issue?

your following analogy to cancer really illustrates a lack of understanding on the subject, though. these things are not at all alike, for reasons i would think obvious.

 

[RedShift]

"I defend the freedom of expression! Unless I dont like what was said."

This is such a ridiculous argument, I don't think you understand what freedom of expression actually means.

Freedom of expression doesn't mean you can say hurtful and stupid things and no one is allowed to critisise you. It actually means exactly the opposite. It means you can tell guys like the Penny Arcade guys what pieces of shit they are.

 

[polyh3dron]

he specifically responded to those groups, though - the timeline even highlights where he engaged the original feminist blog raising said complaint. really not seeing how that's disingenuous.

sake of argument, let's say you're right: who do you think he was then targeting, if not feminists & rape victims? you just got done saying he was angry about the notion of triggers, who was making those claims to begin with? I'm uncertain specifically which demographic he could otherwise have been "doubling/tripling" down on here.

You're going in circles now because I addressed your question already in the post you quoted. But go on telling others that they lack understanding.

 

[homulilly]

"A bad person", being insensitive, uneducated, a troll does not necessarily make you a bad person. It might be someone you don't like being around.

There is no doubt he keeps fanning the flames on this one. There is no doubt that he has his own views on the subject that clash with lots of feminist and their supporters, but there is plenty of room on the internet for all those views. He's opinionated and doesn't hide it.

People can stop going to PAX or PA's website if they have trouble with this. People should stop trying to "educate" him as it is obvious he does not want to be "educated".

His views on transgendered people are far worse in my opinion.

His views on transgendered people are a large part of why i think he's an awful person. I don't think that someone's bigoted, harmful views can be dismissed as just "his opinion" or anything else and in my opinion there is no room ANYWHERE, online or off, for bigoted views, be the sexist, transphobic, racist or otherwise. "Not wanting to be educated," as you put it, is precisely what makes him a shitty person.

 

[Smash]

your following analogy to cancer really illustrates a lack of understanding on the subject, though. these things are not at all alike, for reasons i would think obvious.

Oh I'm sorry, watching my mother slowly die of cancer isn't traumatic enough for me to have an opinion? Are there levels to human tragedy that define how much we can censor comedians?

 

[blitzcloud]

This is such a ridiculous argument, I don't think you understand what freedom of expression actually means.

Freedom of expression doesn't mean you can say hurtful and stupid things and no one is allowed to critisise you. It actually means exactly the opposite. It means you can tell guys like the Penny Arcade guys what pieces of shit they are.

it means both things because perception is a matter taken individually. To some it may be hurtful while it may not be to others. Freedom of speech is for everyone.

Another thing is that the exercise of freedom of speech can be used for better or worse.

 

[Carcetti]

"I defend the freedom of expression! Unless I dont like what was said."

Freedom of expression means the government of the country you live in can't stop you from speaking out.

It also means that when you say something stupid, other people can say 'Damn, that was fucking stupid!'

 

[Metallix87]

People want so badly to be outraged. People are not content until they are malcontent.

This. It was a funny comic strip, even if it wasn't very PC. Don't like it? Don't read it again. Simple as that.

 

[IrishNinja]

^thread could really use some more drive-by reductive posts

You're going in circles now because I addressed your question already in the post you quoted. But go on telling others that they lack understanding.

not at all adequately for me, or i'd not've asked - if you don't want to respond, you certainly don't have to, but i didn't accuse you of lacking understanding, only those using analogies that clearly didn't fit...there's no reason to take things personally.

Oh I'm sorry, watching my mother slowly die of cancer isn't traumatic enough for me to have an opinion? Are there levels to human tragedy that define how much we can censor comedians?

we're an an impasse because you choose to frame this as "censoring comedians" which i don't think was ever the case, and certainly not the point with all that has transipred in the time. additionally, you're making an argument from emotion in an effort to overlap two entirely differnet things, and it's not working and I don't really know how else to say that without risking you taking offense over your unrelated personal tragedy, which I really don't want to do.

 

[blitzcloud]

This. It was a funny comic strip, even if it wasn't very PC. Don't like it? Don't read it again. Simple as that.

 

[IrishNinja]

^blitz i'm gonna assume you appreciate the irony of having the most replies in this thread so far, haha

 

[Smash]

we're an an impasse because you choose to frame this as "censoring comedians" which i don't think was ever the case, and certainly not the point with all that has transipred in the time.

Yes it is, please stop with the intellectually dishonest arguments. They're not complaining just to complain, they obviously have as a goal to affect the content of the site and what cannot be said there.

additionally, you're making an argument from emotion in an effort to overlap two entirely differnet things, and it's not working and I don't really know how else to say that without risking you taking offense over your unrelated personal tragedy, which I really don't want to do.

Irony overload, I'm the one making arguments from emotion? Not the one supposedly representing all victims in an effort to censor entire sites dude.

 

[Swifty]

Oh I'm sorry, watching my mother slowly die of cancer isn't traumatic enough for me to have an opinion? Are there levels to human tragedy that define how much we can censor comedians?

When has Penny Arcade been censored? Is criticism considered censorship now?

 

[IrishNinja]

Yes it is, please stop with the intellectually dishonest arguments. They're not complaining just to complain, they obviously have as a goal to affect the content of the site and what cannot be said there.

the former is literally the goal of every complaint (which is what this was) ever; the later bit about the content was only the desire of, again, the original feminist blog which Gabe himself logged in & responded to. since then, i and others who've continued making the argument that while gabe is free to put up whatever he pleases on his site, his continually assholish response (one he backed off from, and again, has now decided to own again despite, you know, what he was shooting for with PAX) is the focus of said complaint. there is nothing about that which calls for censorship; likewise, there are consequences for continually saying foolish things. i see nothing wrong with any of this, only your particular framing of the early bits.

Irony overload, I'm the one making arguments from emotion? Not the one supposedly representing all victims in an effort to censor entire sites dude.

interesting choice of words
1) no one in this thread has claimed such representation nor goals
2) you're the one bringing deceased relatives into the discussion, think about that

When has Penny Arcade been censored? Is criticism considered censorship now?

i honestly don't know who the "they" calling for such is in most of these exchanges (hence my conversation with polyh3dron): the ire seems to be the small # of feminist sites involved in the original controversy, but somehow applied to, i'm not sure, presumably those like myself in the last several rounds of these lengthy threads who've sought context in said discussion

 

[a.wd]

And allow me to add that it didn't downplay the horror of rape. It was put as an excruciating pain they were going through every day.

This thread has taught me somethings, 1) Blitzcloud you are cool.

2) I understand that rape and rape culture is awful, but I don't think that precludes people from even mentioning it, especially in the context of a joke where the rape isn't the key point and in fact underlines how awful the lives are of the people mentioned in the joke.

3) People are going to freak out about stuff, and sometimes human beings say stupid shit. As conscientious humans we can use this as a method of self regulating and educate someone near us without resorting to hand wringing histrionics

4) I found an image online and while its not aimed at anyone I thought that some people here might find it funny in the context of this discussion, go on laugh its human and makes you smarter

 

[polyh3dron]

Yes it is, please stop with the intellectually dishonest arguments. They're not complaining just to complain, they obviously have as a goal to affect the content of the site and what cannot be said there.




Irony overload, I'm the one making arguments from emotion? Not the one supposedly representing all victims in an effort to censor entire sites dude.

Using the word "censor" opens your argument up for your opponent to apply connotations to it that you may not intend.. Just a piece of advice.

 

[SolidChamp]

Why is my lack of interest in a topic a cop-out? I find the rape joke discussion interesting, but I really don't care for the asshole v. non-asshole nature of their response to rape joke criticism. Their response was a dick way of going about it from a decency standpoint, and the absolute worst way possible from a PR standpoint. I don't think there's much in the way of debate there. That's not a very compelling discussion to me, thus my post.

Fair enough, I suppose.

 

[blitzcloud]

^blitz i'm gonna assume you appreciate the irony of having the most replies in this thread so far, haha

Maybe I did the most replies yeah, but many of them were just quick responses.

The irony here is that i'm not even a fan of PA, but I don't know why I always take the volunteer role of devil's advocate

 

[Astery]

Just skimmed through the time line, incredibly stupid for PA to bring up the issue again.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

There's an unfortunate element of shame associated with rape that makes even "lighthearted" mockery of rape or rape victims problematic. It's why the Dickwolves t-shirt pushed precisely the wrong button, and it's why this situation is not particularly analogous to most other personal tragedies and hardships.

 

[homulilly]

The matter is dead cold. A comment does not change anything. They didn't put it back on sale. That's what probably matters.

What matters is that Mike Krahulik, public face of Penny Arcade and associated organizations like Childs Play and PAX, the largest videogame convention in North America (followed by PAX East, lol) is a raging misogynist, transphobic, rape apologist asshole. As a videogame enthusiast myself, this makes my blood boil.

 

[Senor Kami]

I think a joke about rape is in poor taste but is ultimately "whatever" as I don't consider myself, my ethics, or my standards to be law. A shirt supporting rape... that's a bit twisted imo. I could tolerate a joke but selling a shirt that says you support or are affiliated with rapists, no thanks. Too much for me. I'll do my best to ensure that none of my money ever touches anything they're associated with, whether it be PAX, Childs Play, or anything.

 

[blitzcloud]

What matters is that Mike Krahulik, public face of Penny Arcade and associated organizations like Childs Play and PAX, the largest videogame convention in North America (followed by PAX East, lol) is a raging misogynist, transphobic, rape apologist asshole. As a videogame enthusiast myself, this makes my blood boil.

I thought the "rape comic" featured a male, and the transgender thing, well, I don't even want to have a take in subjects that are too far away from my reality to have a proper opinion... but please tell me what was exactly the raging misogyny part of his bad PR articles. Because I really want to know how he expresses his hate towards women.

 

[polyh3dron]

I think a joke about rape is in poor taste but is ultimately "whatever" as I don't consider myself, my ethics, or my standards to be law. A shirt supporting rape... that's a bit twisted imo. I could tolerate a joke but selling a shirt that says you support or are affiliated with rapists, no thanks. Too much for me. I'll do my best to ensure that none of my money ever touches anything they're associated with, whether it be PAX, Childs Play, or anything.

I was unaware that PA sold a shirt supporting rape. What did this shirt say or depict in order to support rape?

 

[aeolist]

i really wish the people arguing here in mike's defense could put themselves in the shoes of those upset by this

i really wish you guys could just make an effort to see why some people might find stuff like this extremely nasty and hurtful

and when countless people continue to pour in without reading anything but the thread title, page after page, and make some throwaway comment about how none of the critics have a valid point of view without even considering the possibility that there are human beings in the real physical world being marginalized and disregarded by the things they say, that's even more hurtful